by
Fr. Juan Romero
April 30, 2026
(My 62nd Anniversary of Ordination)

DEDICATION

I dedicate this essay to the memory of Michael Miles Clements, born in 1945. I met Mike in 1968 during my assignment as an associate pastor for a few years at Our Lady of Guadalupe parish in La Habra in north Orange County, then still part of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. He was in the last years of his twelve-year stint at St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, ordained to the deaconate but not to priesthood.

In 2014, Michael was honored by the seminary for being a “Distinguished Alumnus”, but his earthly career as a Community Organizer ended at the age of 77 in 2022.

In his earlier years, we worked together at the parish on several projects: founding a newsletter for the local Spanish speaking community, supporting the farmworker movement, working with the Gary (Youth) Center within the old adobe parish church, and participating in the 1970 national Chicano Moratorium protesting the disproportionate number of Mexican Americans soldiers killed in Vietnam. Michael also helped me organize an upholstery cooperative with seed money from the Campaign for Human Development. It provided employment for recently released “pintos” (tattooed former prisoners) of the local barrio.
I introduced Michael to Fr. John Coffield who had been a special mentor for me. In 1972, Michael married Enedina with whom he had a daughter and an adopted daughter. In 1973, Mike as director of the Gary Center invited the PADRES “Mobile Team Ministry” based in San Antonio to give an “Issue Discernment Workshop” in La Haba. PADRES was a national Chicano priests’ organization, and at the time I was its executive director and a member of the “Team”. Mike found the experience enriching and decided to come to San Antonio to deepen his organizational skills and was mentored by Ernesto Cortez, native San Antonian and disciple of Saul Alinsky, founder of the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF).

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING
In the very late ‘60s, while stationed for my second assignment as a priest at Our Lady of Guadalupe parish in Santa Barbara, I attended a lecture by Saul Alinsky at the City College. I knew Alinsky’s name and a little about his work as a community organizer in Chicago. Within a couple of years, he published his book Rules for Radicals (1971) with introduction by Msgr. Jack Egan, well-known priest-activist of Chicago. The IAF, a national network of community organizations, became the parent of a plethora of “alphabet soup” community organizations throughout the country.
I became involved with a few: COPS (Communities Organized for Public Service) in San Antonio, UNO (United Neighborhoods Organization) in East Los Angeles, and EVO (East Valleys Organization in southern California. They unabashedly strove to achieve goals for the improvement of family and community according to the “SELF-INTERESTS” of their participants. Clergymen—Catholic, Protestant, Jew—were active collaborators in the initial development and promotion of broad-based community organizations in the Chicago area (Back of the Yards) and within their various church institutions throughout the country.

Movements have always affected the world and the Church whose early experience was a quintessential “movement”. In IAF parlance a “movement” is distinct from an “organization”. There are about four or five key distinctions, but I recall only a few:
• Movement depends on a charismatic leadership (e.g., the “anti-war “movement” or the early phase of the UFW and Cesar Chavez) as opposed to an organization’s collective leadership.
• A movement is temporary, but an organization has lasting power because it is based within/among INSTITUTIONS like a labor union or church.
• A movement uses other people’s money while an organization generates its OWN MONEY.

Another import word in the IAF lexicon is POWER. This is simply the ABILITY TO ACT effectively. This has little to do with money, worldly influence, or media as such. Poor people should not be afraid of it but should seek to USE power according to true values (human and Gospel) for good and humane purposes that benefit the COMMON GOOD.
Collective power is built in increments, and takes time, energy, talent, as well as ORGANIZED money (e.g. parish dues). There are stages and there is a process. Notice how Yahweh “organized” His people by smartly using MOSES, His prophet and “agitator”, to ORGANIZE the people into “thousands, hundreds and tens…”. (Exodus 18:25)
In IAF style, this is done by looking for (search and discover) potential LEADERS and then HOOKING them UP (connecting them with each other) much as Hail-Marys are connected to one another and all linked to an Our Father in a decade of a Rosary. The main criterion for a “leader”, by nature or training, is to HAVE A FOLLOWING AND CAN DELIVER IT! The “following” may be great or small– made up of ten people, five, three, a hundred or more.

ONE-ON-ONE
Within a church context, the Lead (professional) Organizer–after mutual agreement between pastor and organizer– may begin the process of community organization by asking the pastor for a list of names and phone numbers of potential leaders. Let’s call the lead organizer Ernie and the pastor Fr. Juan. Ernie Cortez, native San Antonian, was lead-organizer of several broad-based community organizations throughout the country. I observed him in action with COPS in San Antonio and worked with him with UNO leaders in East Los Angeles. The organizer will block out a limited time to make telephone calls, maybe a half an hour to make ten to twlelve calls from the list. The call to each potential leader is short. Its purpose is to GET A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING with the potential leader, woman or man whom we will call José.

PHONE CALL to get ONE-ON-ONE MEETING – “KISS” = Keep It Short and Simple!

The following scenario is role-played in training exercises for potential leaders. In the role play, Ernie calls José and the call goes something like this:
1) CREDENTIAL: RING, RING! “Hello, José. I am Ernesto and am working on a project with your pastor Fr. Juan. He gave me your name and phone number.”
This is analogous to Yaweh’s answer to question of Moses: “Who shall I say sent me?”. (Cf. Ex. 31:-4)
2) FOCUS: “We’re planning a meeting about community improvements related to the parish, and we would like to get some of your ideas beforehand.”
3) PITCH: “May I come to your home to LISTEN to some of your ideas?”
4) SEAL THE DEAL: “Great! When would be good for you? Let’s see if it works out for me. Yes!
5) PARTICUARS: “Time. Where do you live? See you there on (date/time). Bye for now.”

HOME MEETING (One-on-One):
This is not “an investigation”, but an INQUIRY, an attempt to DISCERN JOSE’s “SELF-INTEREST”. It is a dialogue in which Ernie profitably shares something about himself. The exchange about “self-interest” is not to be confused with “selfishness” but pertains to what is MOST IMPORTANT to José and his family. The home meeting is for Ernie to discover whatever core values José has. These are expressed as “interests”.
There is a double focus for the “One-on-One” home meeting. The first is active LISTENING to the potential leader, and some “AGITATION” by the organizer who acts analogous to the apparatus in a washing machine (agitator) that stirs up the clothes as part of a good wash, e.g., “What do you really like about what’s happening within the neighborhood or broader civic community? What BOTHERS YOU MOST?” The flipside of what bothers him is most often what is more important to his life.

The second focus of the home meeting is to DISCOVER the NETWORK of the potential leader. Ernie asks José, “Who do you know that experiences what you are experiencing in the community or something like it? Whose opinion do you value? Who has good relations/connections with you and with members of the community?”
Take NOTE – keep record of names and phone numbers proffered. The length or shortness of the list of RELATIONSHIPS is an important first indication of LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL. Whoever shows up more often on cross-lists of people visited indicates higher leadership quality. The longer the list of names and phones of other people suggested, the higher is leadership potential. A high number of relationships indicates greater leadership.
The one-on-one home meeting should be between half an hour to an hour. Ernie may defer socializing/refreshments with the explanation that he has other appointments for the evening. At the end of the one-on-one “Home Meeting”, José is invited (or not) to a “House Meeting” of about eight to ten persons to take place within a week or two. José is advised—or soon will be–of date, time and place.

HOUSE MEETING
A HOUSE MEETING is held after a series of One-On-One meetings. Number of attendees for each house meeting should be between 8 to 10 or maximum 12. A larger number becomes unwieldy. Ernie probably should lead the meeting unless he will have trained José or another to lead it. The AGENDA is simple and does not have to be formalized in writing.
Household leader: 1) Welcomes, 2) Introduces Ernie who will lead the meeting, 3) Invites María or another to lead in simple prayer and/or short scripture reading. Simple refreshments MAY be served after the meeting.

Ernie presents FOCUS:
I have met with you individually, and it is now good to get together. We’re trying to define some key elements to improve our community for yourselves, your children and for all belonging to St. Alphonsus parish or live in the neighborhhood. What we’re doing here tonight is taking place in other parishes in East L.A. With the Lord’s help we will be able to promote some changes for the betterment of our community. Several of you may already know each other from church.
Let’s do a quick go-around with brief introductions—your name, where you grew up, how long you have lived in the parish. Please state briefly some of the most important things you told me, ISSUES you brought up when we visited. What specific ISSUE is very important or MOST IMPORTANT to you, your family and neighbors? I ask you to share this evening what you told me about what BOTHERS YOU MOST. What values within our community most need to be protected? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE CHANGED to improve the neighborhood?
SHARE – GO AROUND

PROBLEM/ISSUE – distinction
Addressing the group, Ernie asks, “What are the KEY, i.e., most important, ISSUES you talked with me about and that you would like to bring HERE TONIGHT?”
Much of what is raised at house meeting tends to be a series of “PROBLEMS”. Attendees of House Meeting will not be able to do anything to effectively address them. A Problem is too large to get a handle on. The problem(s) will need to be broken down into ISSUES that are concrete, specific, with responsible name(s) and COST amount(s) attached. To do this effectively takes research and discernment to distill a PROBLEM into the various ISSUES that comprise the “problems”. “Issues” are “actionable”, i.e., one CAN DO SOMETHING to resolve them. However, one person or several cannot FIX a big PROBLEM!

COMMON DENOMINATOR – An Example
In House Meetings–held mostly in Catholic Churches but also in some Protestant churches in ELA during 1972—the exorbitant price of Auto Insurance surfaced as a common ISSUE through thousands of interviews (one-on-one meetings) and house meetings. In the early days of UNO (United Neighborhoods Organization), this became an overarching ISSUE. A variety of concrete and SPECIFIC issues were discerned and addressed with concrete and specific ACTIONS toward groups such as City Council, State of California, or on a particular politician, insurance company, etc. We were able to act on the STATE (CA) LEVEL for reforms by negotiating with insurance companies for more equitable rates that were on a par with more affluent communities that customarily paid less for insurance premiums.

AN “ACTION”
After collective discernment, issues are discerned. They need to then be prioritized. Which are most important? Which of these can we effectively do something about to change our reality to IMPROVE our reality/ quality of life? What to do? Decide on specific action. Who is the “TARGET”, i.e., best person with sufficient POWER (“ability to act”) to make a difference. We may wish to MEET that person in order “to move the Action” because that person can make a difference. How do we do we meet with him/her? Any of us (leaders) already have a RELATONSHIP with the “target”? What do we say/do? Plan strategy. Who does what? Define leadership roles.

QUOTAS
A collective decision is made on how many people will be needed for an effective Action. Each leader offers to bring a certain number of followers at designated place and time. Lead Organizer may encourage (agitate for) a larger quota. Each leader is aware that in DEBRIEF session, each leader will have to give an account (accountability). How many people did you commit? How many did you DELIVER?
Leaders for the “Action” are chosen and prepped.

THE ACTION
The day, time, place are set. The ACTION happens. Target, leaders, followers fulfil their expected roles, either well or poorly. The DEBRIEF session will tell. One of the phrases in the IAF lexicon is “The action is in the reaction.”

DEBRIEFING
As soon as convenient, the top leadership gathers to DEBRIEF the action. This part of the process is more important than the preparation for the action or the action itself. During the DEBRIEF, TRUE LEARNING TAKES PLACE– our “collective REFLECTION ON OUR ACTION” is valuable!
The LEAD ORGINIZER leads the DEBRIEF. What follows is an OUTLINE of points to be evaluated; special contributions are to be recognized. Each leader is expected to actively participate in the DEBRIEF SESSION.

• FEELING: How do you FEEL about the Action? What did you like most, and why?
• TIME: Did we begin the Action ON TIME? Did we FINISH on time?
• TURN OUT: Did the number of people expected actually show up? How many of the “followers” of the various leaders attend? Did each Leader meet his/her quota? Leaders report their quota number AND number of people of their people who actually came to the action. (Accountability!) The leaders who achieved their quota are to be recognized (with applause), and those who surpassed their quotas are to be noted—perhaps with a standing ovation.
• FOCUS – What was the central idea of the Action? What precisely did the Action expect to accomplish? Did it? To what extent? DID THE ACTION KEEP its FOCUS?
• PROCESS: How well (or not) did the Action unfold? How well did our Leaders fulfill their respective tasks? Those who fulfilled their roles especially well are to be recognized and congratulated.
• TENSION in a meeting is not a bad thing. It can provide INTEREST or EXCITEMENT to what otherwise may be a dull process. Tension may have to be purposefully built into the Action. It is important that the Tension of the Action be positively and purposely released. Was there any tension during the action? When? How? By whom? Result?
• NEXT STEP: What is the next step for resolution of the action? What are the following action steps? Who are charged with carrying out which ACTION-STEPS? ASSIGNMENTS?
• OTHER ITEMS?
• CELEBRATION: The conclusion of an Action–after DEBRIEF—IS TO BE CELEBRATED! It’s time for a simple celebration: some light refreshment, spontaneous socializing to celebrate a (PARTIAL or total) victory!

CONVENTIONS
After House Meetings, some larger actions, a general meeting is to be held on the parish level, then interparochial, then regional CONVENTIONS. This is a large formal gathering with a purpose, AN AGENDA WITH A FOCUS.

ADDENDUM

Circa 1969, the newly forming PADRES, national organization of Chicano priests, sent a few men to an IAF (Industrial Areas Foundation) training session in Chicago. Among the group, I believe, were PADRES cofounders Ralph Ruiz, Edmundo Rodriguez, Al Carrillo, and Henry Casso—all now deceased. Carrillo was from Tucson, AZ and the rest from San Antonio, TX.
Fr. Edmundo “Mundo” was a Jesuit priest who had High School experience with YCS (Young Chrisian Students) in El Paso. Of the group, he was most theologically trained and had most knowledge about “movements” in the history of the Church.

YCS was part of “specialized Catholic Action” promoted by Belgian priest Joseph Cardijn in the early 20th century. By the time he returned home after years of seminary training, his boyhood friends had become “de-Christianized” through the atmosphere of their adult workplace. As a young priest, he wanted to change that dynamic and began to work in small groups first with young women working in factories. He developed the “CELL TECHNIQUE”, i.e., working in small groups, and taught his disciples to effectively cope with and incrementally transform their working-world.

About 1929, just before the Great Depression hit the USA, Father Cardijn visited Pope Pius XI in Rome. The priest was somehow able to skirt papal security to have a brief private audience with the Holy Father who gave his blessing. “At last, someone speaks with me about the worker!” Within a couple of years (May 1931), Pius XI published Quadragesimo Ano, his encyclical complementing Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum—papal letters outlining a path to a Christian social order.
The “specialization” comes from the papal vision of Pius XI who stated that from now on, “The apostle to the worker will be workers, to the farmer will be farmers, the apostle to students will be other students”. A corollary is that the apostle to married couples would be other married couples. This paring promoted by the Pope is referred to as “LIKE-TO-LIKE” apostolate of Catholic Action.

Fr. Edmundo Rodriguez founded and promoted a national Mobile Team Ministry to foster LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT among Mexican Americans and Mexicans on the local (base) level in targeted areas throughout the country. While pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe parish in San Antonio, he was key to the formation and cooperative action of the Six-Parish Coalition of San Antonio’s Westside. Father Edmundo was a co-founder of the fledging PADRES organization (Padres Asociados para los Derechos Religiosos, Educativos y Sociales) and of MACC (Mexican American Cultural Center, now called the Mexican American College). He expertly put together funding proposals to the CHD, the (Catholic) Campaign for Human Development. In the early 1970s, he penned proposals for C.O.P.S. (Communities Organized for Public Service), a prototypical IAF-style BROAD-BASED Community Organizing project based in San Antono, and other community organizations were soon to follow.

JOCISTS – The term comes from the French words Jeunesse Ouvriere Chretienne for Young Christian Workers. Those belonging to the “specialized” movement for workers, farmers, students, married couples who used the SEE-JUDGE-ACT technique. The movements spread into Europe, Africa, Latin America, and North America. Canon Cardijn (later Cardinal) promoted the VER-JUZGAR-ACTUAR (Observe, Judge, Act) formula based on St. Thomas’ treatment of the Virtue of PRUDENCE (Q. 42) —“practical wisdom leading to right action.” Fr. John Coffield of LA and Fr. Jim Anderson of San Diego were chaplains of specialized Catholic Action in Southern California.

+ OBSERVE – A hard and critical look and one’s REALITY/environment and that of WORK SITUATION, family, neighborhoods.
+ JUDGE – Make a practical judgement on the rightfulness or not of that reality. Its values are judged IN THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL and Teaching of the Church. What needs to CHANGE for the concrete reality to conform more to the ideal?
+ ACT – What specific action(s) can I, in concert with others, take to make a difference to bring the reality more in accord with the ideal?

To act COLLECTIVLEY is distinct from the charism of the Christopher Movement which is to “light ONE candle” instead of acting strategically and proactively in concert with others to build a bonfire.
In the 1950’s, YCW (Young Christian Workers) grew in Europe and in America, but sputtered in the USA where it did not really take off.

However, CFM—the Christian Family Movement—did prosper! Pat and Patty Crowley of Chicago were main Sowers of this “Seed” of specialized Catholic Action. In the ’60s it was transplanted to MEXICO by Jesus y Maria Luz ICAZA , auditores at Vatican II meetings regarding Marriage and Family Life. Maryknoll priest Father Donald Hessler was a great promoter of MFC (Movimiento Familiar Cristiano, Spanish for Christian Family Movement), which he helped transport from USA to Mexico.
Somewhat related to the MFC was the Spanish-born Encuentro Matrimonial (Conyugal ) shepherded by Padre Gabriel CAVALVO. By 1969, the CFM national convention held at Notre Dame, Indiana pledged to sponsor about sixty couples to come from Spain and introduce Encuentros to couples in the USA. They focused more on the relationship between the spouses and within the family but otherwise did not carry much of a social agenda. Father Chuck Gallager of the USA developed “Worldwide Marriage Encounter” throughout the world.
All these movements are somewhat interconnected and have the common aim of “renewal of the face of the earth”.

I am privileged to have known and been influenced in priestly ministry by several of these apostles and prophets. “THY KINGDOME COME!”